[dead]

Since the “civil war” the left has been begging Santa for seems like a (knock wood) non-starter, the anti-Bush crowd has adopted the “uppity puppet” scenario wherein our little marionette goes all Chucky on our ass and brings great unrest to the previously sunshine-and-rainbow world of the Middle East.

I like this line too:

Bush seemed to be as resentful of the Iranian Islamic regime as he was of that of Saddam.

As if the whole war on terror thing is some outgrowth of a randomly resentful simpleminded Bush. Like somebody mussed the big oaf’s hair.

Amin Saikal has been an Islamic apologist since Day One and his predictions have been wrong at every turn.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Amin Saikal is professor of political science and director of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Australian National University.

And a pantywaist. And overcompensated at any salary.

[Cicero]

Let's have some full disclosure. Is Amin Saikal a Sunni Muslim? If so, is he a religious bigot?

[MEG33]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1332544/posts
Mark Steyn: The 'civil war' that wasn't
The Australian ^ | 1 February | Mark Steyn


Posted on 01/31/2005 8:11:24 AM CST by Eurotwit


"AND so the "looming Iraqi election fiasco" joins "the brutal Afghan winter" and "the brutal Iraqi summer" and "the seething Arab street" and all the other junk in the overflowing trash can of post-9/11 Western media fictions. The sight of millions of brave voters emerging from polling stations holding high their purple dye-stained fingers was so inspiring that, from America's Democratic Party to European protest rallies, opponents of the war waited, oh, all of three minutes before flipping the Iraqis their own fingers, undyed."...snip

Good antidote to these naysayers.

[Brian Allen]

<< The [United States of America] may find that the unintended consequences of its invasion may bring it more isolation in the Sunni world of Islam than it may have ever envisaged, and this may outweigh the benefits that it had hoped to gain from its Iraq adventure. >>

Good find, dead.

Poor sunni boy is so full of shiite I'll bet his Ahab eyes are brown!

This deduction despite that his ranting is reduced to the level of the Dream Team by his palpable hatred of our President and of the achievements, so far, brought about by our nation's and its allies half-way-around-the-world projection of our Great Power.

The man's a moron.

But your remarks are priceless!

[JOAT]

This simpleton acts surprised that the US is 'blundering' by 'allowing' the Shiites to gain control. He bemoans how this will alienate the Iraqis from the rest of the Arab world. So what if 'new' Iraq moves closer to Iran and away from Syria?

The age old 'divide and conquer' strategy DOES work well in the Middle East....duh.

Iran is about to experience a regime change soon too I suspect...Israel cannot sit idly by while Tehran develops nukes. Iranian officials have already stated that it will be worth the retaliation to wipe Israel off the map with nukes.

If we don't pull the trigger on the Mullahs, surely Tel Aviv will.

As much as the world portrays Bush as a bungler on WMD, if one has a goal of reshaping the Middle East into a less barbaric state, taking out Iraq was the only way to have a staging area to do the rest. (The fact that this also happens to be the number 2 reserve of known oil doesn't hurt either, from a strategic standpoint.) A reformed Iran that is cozy with the reformed Iraq due to Shiite brotherhood works pretty well as a nucleus to offset Saud, Syria et al.

[SunkenCiv]

I wholeheartedly agree.

It marks the end of minority Sunni political dominance and the beginning of Iraq's transition away from the Arab world towards what may emerge as a strategic Shiite entity, stretching from central Afghanistan to Syria and Lebanon... The empowerment of the Iraqi Shiites was not on Washington's agenda when the US President, George Bush, decided on the invasion of Iraq.

The only thing on GWB's agenda was to democratize Iraq. That means, the majority is going to be largely in charge. That is in and of itself the beginning of the end for Islam, which doesn't tolerate diversity, minority points of view, or other faiths.

As Iraq finishes off the terrorists, and spends all that oil money on infrastructure (educational, electrical, communications, water, sewer, etc) instead of on insane amounts of armaments (including nuclear and chemical weapons), Arabs from all over -- including so-called "Palestine" -- will move there to enjoy a better life, including democracy.

So, the possibility of a Shiite empire -- which is a figment of the limited Islamic imagination of that op-ed writer -- won't emerge at all.

Particularly since a free Iraq with a mullahcracy on its eastern border isn't tenable. Iran is going to join Iraq as a democratic nation, and it will happen sooner rather than later.

[ravingnutter]

The objective was to topple Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, uncover his alleged weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion, and transform Iraq into a US-linked state in a way that would bring about wider favourable changes in the region against US foes, especially the predominantly Shiite Islamic republic of Iran.

Well, at least he didn't say it was all about oil : )